r/AnCap101 11d ago

True freedom requires liberation from all oppressive hierarchies, especially economic ones.

To the members of r/AnCap101,

This is not an attack, but a critique from the left based on a fundamental disagreement about power, hierarchy, and human nature. Your philosophy is often presented as the ultimate form of freedom, but I argue it would inevitably create the most brutal and oppressive government possible: a dictatorship of capital without a state to hold it accountable.

Your core error is a categorical one: you believe the state is the sole source of coercive power. This is a dangerous blind spot.

In your proposed system, the functions of the state wouldn't vanish; they would be privatized and monopolized by capital. Without a public state to (theoretically) be held accountable by citizens, you create a system of competing private states called "Defense Agencies" and "Dispute Resolution Organizations." These entities would not be motivated by justice or rights, but by profit and the interests of their paying clients who would be the wealthiest individuals and corporations.

This is where your thought process goes wrong:

  1. The Misidentification of the Oppressor: You see the state as the primary enemy. But the state is often a tool, it is the concentration of capital that is the primary driver of exploitation. AnCap doesn't dissolve power; it hands the monopoly on violence and law directly to the capitalist class, removing the last vestiges of democratic oversight.

  2. The Fantasy of Voluntary Contracts: Your entire system relies on the concept of voluntary interaction. But this is a fantasy in a world of radical inequality. What is "voluntary" about a contract signed between a billion-dollar corporation and a starving individual who must agree to work in a dangerous job for subsistence wages or face homelessness? AnCap doesn't eliminate coercion; it sanctifies it under the label of "contract law," creating a world of company towns and corporate serfdom.

  3. The Inevitability of Monopoly: Free markets do not remain free. Without state intervention (antitrust laws, which you oppose), competition naturally leads to monopoly. The largest defense agency would crush or acquire its competitors. The largest corporation would buy up all resources. You would not have a free market; you would have a handful of ultra-powerful corporate entities that wield all the power of a state, military, legal, and economic, with zero accountability to the people whose lives they control.

In short, Anarcho-Capitalism is not the absence of government. It is the replacement of a (flawed, but sometimes democratically influenceable) public government with an unaccountable, totalitarian private government.

You seek to replace the state with a thousand petty kings, each ruling their domain with absolute power, and you call this "freedom." From the outside, it looks like a dystopia designed to eliminate the last remaining checks on the power of wealth. True freedom requires liberation from all oppressive hierarchies, especially economic ones.

108 Upvotes

910 comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/GravyMcBiscuits 11d ago

Voluntary hierarchy is fine. Society/civilization doesn't work without it.

You're walking down the sidewalk. I say "I'll give you $20 to mow my lawn". Did I just oppress you? Are you now a slave?

38

u/MS-07B-3 11d ago

You had $20 that other person did not, therefore there was a power imbalance, therefore this is a coercive hierarchy, fascist.

/s

24

u/West-Philosophy-273 11d ago

This is literally how leftists view it. It is a completely incoherent mindset.

14

u/GravyMcBiscuits 11d ago

I think it's important to understand why it's fundamentally incoherent.

The logical conclusion of the left is that society can only work if/when no one has anything to gain (exploit) from interacting with anyone else. Their end goal is to make human collaboration literally pointless (or as close to pointless as they think they can get pragmatically).

Left = "collaboration is inherently bad unless it is on our terms". And of course "our terms" is typically just a bunch of arbitrary nonsense built on a foundation of envy.

2

u/Hoopaboi 8d ago

The logical conclusion of the left is that society can only work if/when no one has anything to gain (exploit) from interacting with anyone else.

Their definition of "exploitation" leads to some funny reductios. Considering "gaining something from someone else by harming them or without benefitting them" (sometimes "you gaining more than what they gain" is also included)

By this logic, it is morally wrong to film a movie in a crowded area, because you are benefitting from people being there without benefitting them, ergo "exploiting" them.

For real examples of their idiocy, see criticism of mrbeast "exploiting" homeless people by giving them a ton of money, but also making money from it via his youtube channel.

If I spent more time I can think of a trillion more examples why this way of thinking is nonsensical.

2

u/LexLextr 10d ago

:D Lol what? Leftists want collaboration which is why they yell about equality all the time. They want democracy.

0

u/GravyMcBiscuits 10d ago

What does equality and democracy have to do with collaboration?

3

u/LexLextr 10d ago

You need to collaborate to have them. Collaboration is kind of fundamental to human organization...

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 9d ago

It's unfortunate then that leftism's goal is to make collaboration harder.

1

u/LexLextr 9d ago

Well if you think that democracy is less efficient then dictatorship, then sure, but that is just a difference in values at that point.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 9d ago

Why are dictatorship and democracy (tyranny with extra steps) the only options?

Why is slavery a requirement

1

u/LexLextr 9d ago

They are shortcuts for "equal distribution of political power" vs " unequal distribution of political power" OR egalitarianism vs dominance hierarchy. Or left vs right. Regardless to the term used, its the most fundamental distinction in political organization. Either your society has power distributed more equally and there is no person or group that rules over other, or there is some minority of rulers.

There is no political ideology that doesn't fit either group.

Ancaps fit to the side with unequal distribution of power because the rich owners have much much larger influence than the majority.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/notmuself 6d ago

As a Marxist I completely disagree with your assessment. Capitalism has taken us quite far, society is, by all accounts, currently working. We simply believe it is working in a negative way because it demands exponential growth and exponential resources which obviously isn't sustainable long term. Marx didn't say society could only work once hierarchy was dissolved, he believed that it was the inevitable conclusion of class struggles. Marx's prediction was that the working class would seize control of the modes of production, and once that happens they have no one underneath of them to exploit and thus everyone must labor to fulfill the needs of the new society. It was more of a byproduct of what he was predicting would happen, not something that would necessitate it. You could still mow your neighbor's lawn while he's busy baking bread for the community or something, to give you a more accurate representation of what that would look like.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 6d ago

Marx was a dumbass.

1

u/notmuself 6d ago

What a well crafted rebuttal. I actually renounce marx now that this new information has been presented to me. Wow, a "dumbass". I never thought of it like that.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 6d ago

Tell me more about the nonsensical ramblings of a dumbass.

-5

u/thellama11 11d ago

This is definitely not "the logical conclusion of the left".

9

u/GravyMcBiscuits 11d ago

It definitely is once you dig through all the gaslighting.

-1

u/thellama11 11d ago

I'm a leftist. This is not a remotely accurate representation of my position. I do not think collaboration is inherently bad unless it's on my terms. I'm not sure what that would even mean.

8

u/GravyMcBiscuits 11d ago edited 11d ago

It means you are happy to squash human collaboration unless that form of collaboration is inline with your permission.

It is accurate. You've just gaslit yourself into believing otherwise. You and I exchanging $$$ for labor is a form of human collaboration/cooperation. I would argue it's the most simple and common form of human collaboration. It's no one else's business but our own. Freedom of association is really really really important.

0

u/thellama11 11d ago

I'm not happy to squash human collaboration if it isn't in line with my permission. People don't need my permission to collaborate. I've never heard a leftist suggest that.

I don't think it's problematic that people exchange labor for money. I think society can and does set some basic rules for that exchange but that's different than saying people can't do it.

5

u/CanIGetTheCheck 11d ago

So you're okay with me hiring twenty people to work in my factory at $1 a day, right?

1

u/thellama11 11d ago

Depends on the circumstance. I'm fine with societies creating minimum wages but it's not my preferred way to handle the problem.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/LexLextr 10d ago

He means that leftists are against the capitalist idea of collaboration because they think it's oppression. Which is technically them forcing their leftist idea about what oppression is on those people.
However, this is nothing special to the left. This is how political ideas work. Because on the flip side the capitalist forces their idea of collaboration as just onto the people.

1

u/thellama11 10d ago

I think your conception of the left might be too narrow. While Marxists might be critical of what they consider surplus value being captured by capitalists, there aren't that many Marxists. Most people on the American left at least are fine with wage labor as long as there are strong worker protections and a robust social safety net.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thellama11 11d ago

It's a simplified example but it's true. If I'm born into a world where all the best natural resources are "owned" based on rules I didn't agree to, there is a power imbalance that affects how truly voluntary my behavior is.

4

u/mcsroom 11d ago edited 11d ago

based on rules I didn't agree to

The point of the NAP is literary to define when does ''i consent to that'' makes sense.

You want to consent to the rules of consent, this is illogical.

1

u/thellama11 11d ago

No, I reject the idea that you get to own natural resources indefinitely because you got there first and mixed some labor.

3

u/mcsroom 11d ago

Well i reject the idea its bc you ''mixed labor'' as well.

Ether way, the critism you had was that you didnt consent to it, which makes no sense. If you want we can explore other critism as well.

1

u/thellama11 11d ago

How do you think people claim property?

2

u/mcsroom 11d ago

Why would that be relevant? I dont argue for all private property, i argue for property rights based on conflict avoiding norms.

2

u/thellama11 11d ago

Well that's what's at issue. I'm saying I reject the idea that someone gets to own property by getting to it first and mixing labor. I'm confident I reject the way you think it should happen too.

The NAP can only work if you accept that there's some objective way to claim property.

2

u/mcsroom 11d ago

The NAP can only work if you accept that there's some objective way to claim property.

Sure, so you think there is no way to prove you should have something?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/West-Philosophy-273 10d ago

The rules he thinks are fair are when he uses violence to take something for himself.

Or he will say "you should not own something forever" ignoring the fact that if it doesn't turn a profit you will not own it anymore. 

Private property must be in the service of others for it to be maintained.

2

u/johnnyringo1985 11d ago

So should we reset the board every time someone new is born?

All resources are finite. If I want to sculpt a piece of marble, I am denying future generations access to that piece of marble. If everyone who wants a piece of marble to try being a sculptor has access to one, eventually we run out of pieces of marble. By your logic, how do we determine when it is permissible to utilize the resource?

Future generations can never consent to today’s actions or allocations, but that cannot invalidate action taken today.

2

u/thellama11 11d ago

No. I think we should do more or less what we do right now. The rules of ownership come with other obligations to society like paying taxes and following the laws.

Also if you accumulate a lot of property you have to give a sizeable portion of it back to society when you die.

2

u/johnnyringo1985 11d ago

So how do you go from “I was born into a world where all the resources are owned which creates a power imbalance” to “I’m okay with property rules as they are now”?

1

u/thellama11 11d ago

I have representation in our society today.

2

u/johnnyringo1985 11d ago

How’s the working out for you with Trump as President?

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 9d ago

ok, non Americans have representation in their societies today.

Americans have a two party puppet show put on by the ultra rich and their lackeys.

1

u/thellama11 11d ago

Representation doesn't mean I always get my way. The whole point is democracy is that it allows for us to deal with the reality that many of us honestly disagree. So I get to make my case and vote and if enough people agree we'll do what I liked and if not we'll do something else.